Judge rejects protection of Sobeida Felix Morel
Prosecutor says the plea bargain is not binding
Diario Libre
SANTO DOMINGO. The judge of the Eighth Courtroom of the Penal Chamber of the Court of the first instance of the National District, Teofilo Andujar Sanchez, declared the order for protection of extreme urgency filed by the inmate Sobeida Felix Morel. Felix Morel is seeking the fulfillment of an agreement (plea bargain) signed with the Justice Department and that this department does not oppose her parole.
The magistrate took the decision during an extra-long hearing which began at 2:00 p.m. and ended a little after 6:00 p.m.
He said that the agreement has legal rulings in article 1134 of the Civil Code and fits within what is the criminal policy of the State which is handled by the Justice Department.
He said that article 148 of the Constitution of the Republic establishes that a person or corporation subject to public law and its officials or agents will be all together and jointly responsible for damages and injuries occasioned to the person or corporation by their actions or judicial administrative omission.
"The lack of compliance with a contractual obligation generates penal and civil responsibilities for those who fail to comply."
He is of the criteria that Sobeida has available ordinary resources in order to force whoever is not complying with his contractual obligations, to make it effective, according to the legislation.
He made note of the fact that just as the inmate has stated, on 28 March 2011 she signed an agreement with the authorities of the Justice Department, represented at that time by the District Attorney of the National District, by means of which she pleaded guilty of the charges of money laundering of funds from drug trafficking and other serious charges, and serve as a prosecution witness against the other defendants or any person tied to the illegal activity for which she was being tried.
Also, she delivered all of her assets seized with the written agreement for the execution of the seizure of these assets. Sobeida's lawyer, Felix Portes, had asked the court to grant the protection order.
In the meantime, the lawyer representing the Prosecutor, Franklin Rodriguez Espinal, had requested the protection request inadmissible because he said they were dealing with an agreement that did not have the category of res judicata, because it was not backed by a judge of Instruction.
He considered that they are in the presence of an agreement between two parties which can be attacked by another judicial process, so that the protection becomes inadmissible.
At the same time, the deputy prosecutor for the National District, Denny Silvestre, says that the District Attorney feels that it is something that is the responsibility of the civil tribunal because they are dealing with a deal between individuals that does not bind the judicial agency in its stipulations.
And Jose Dantes Diaz, who was the first substitute of then District Attorney for the National District, Alejandro Moscoso Segarra, said that the agreement was done based on the legal framework then in force, so that he does not know the reasons it has not been complied with. He said that the District Attorney complied completely with the commitments undertaken by the Justice Department.
What Sobeida Felix Morel said
The inmate, Sobeida Felix Morel, said that the Attorney General of the Republic, Francisco Dominguez Brito, is not in agreement with her parole because he fears for her safety. She revealed that supposedly the Attorney General told her that if she was requested in extradition by the United States he would comply with the agreement that was signed with the District Attorney, and that he was not going to oppose the request for her delivery for extradition.
Likewise, she said that the District Attorney promised her that they were not going to oppose her request for parole as part of the agreement that she made with the state, and because of this she remained quiet during the trial.
The magistrate took the decision during an extra-long hearing which began at 2:00 p.m. and ended a little after 6:00 p.m.
He said that the agreement has legal rulings in article 1134 of the Civil Code and fits within what is the criminal policy of the State which is handled by the Justice Department.
He said that article 148 of the Constitution of the Republic establishes that a person or corporation subject to public law and its officials or agents will be all together and jointly responsible for damages and injuries occasioned to the person or corporation by their actions or judicial administrative omission.
"The lack of compliance with a contractual obligation generates penal and civil responsibilities for those who fail to comply."
He is of the criteria that Sobeida has available ordinary resources in order to force whoever is not complying with his contractual obligations, to make it effective, according to the legislation.
He made note of the fact that just as the inmate has stated, on 28 March 2011 she signed an agreement with the authorities of the Justice Department, represented at that time by the District Attorney of the National District, by means of which she pleaded guilty of the charges of money laundering of funds from drug trafficking and other serious charges, and serve as a prosecution witness against the other defendants or any person tied to the illegal activity for which she was being tried.
Also, she delivered all of her assets seized with the written agreement for the execution of the seizure of these assets. Sobeida's lawyer, Felix Portes, had asked the court to grant the protection order.
In the meantime, the lawyer representing the Prosecutor, Franklin Rodriguez Espinal, had requested the protection request inadmissible because he said they were dealing with an agreement that did not have the category of res judicata, because it was not backed by a judge of Instruction.
He considered that they are in the presence of an agreement between two parties which can be attacked by another judicial process, so that the protection becomes inadmissible.
At the same time, the deputy prosecutor for the National District, Denny Silvestre, says that the District Attorney feels that it is something that is the responsibility of the civil tribunal because they are dealing with a deal between individuals that does not bind the judicial agency in its stipulations.
And Jose Dantes Diaz, who was the first substitute of then District Attorney for the National District, Alejandro Moscoso Segarra, said that the agreement was done based on the legal framework then in force, so that he does not know the reasons it has not been complied with. He said that the District Attorney complied completely with the commitments undertaken by the Justice Department.
What Sobeida Felix Morel said
The inmate, Sobeida Felix Morel, said that the Attorney General of the Republic, Francisco Dominguez Brito, is not in agreement with her parole because he fears for her safety. She revealed that supposedly the Attorney General told her that if she was requested in extradition by the United States he would comply with the agreement that was signed with the District Attorney, and that he was not going to oppose the request for her delivery for extradition.
Likewise, she said that the District Attorney promised her that they were not going to oppose her request for parole as part of the agreement that she made with the state, and because of this she remained quiet during the trial.
Diario Libre
Continuar con Google